We have observed Chief Justice after Chief Justice among
the various states stand up before audiences and publicly denounce JAIL4Judges
as if it were some kind of a threatening plague about to overtake this nation
like the swine or bird flu.

One would think that if J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability
Initiative Law) is so bad as it is being propagated by these highest judges of
this nation, it would be declared public enemy # one! An enemy that deserves to
be castigated in a State of the Union Address, and one that must be eradicated
at all costs, lest it destroy this wonderful judicial system of ours.

Indeed, Chief Justice Ronald George of California who
stated to the Los Angeles Times, (April 24, 2006) that he knows me, attacked
this author with the words that we do not need any extremist trying to tell us
how to run this wonderful judicial system we have here in California. This
author humorously responded to the Times Reporter, Jessica Garrison, at the
Times interview, that perhaps I should give Mr. George a call and arrange to
meet with him for lunch so we could talk about it.

Joining in the list of Chief Justices around the nation
condemning J.A.I.L. is Hawaii Chief Justice Ronald Moon in his January 24 State
of the Judiciary Address to the State Legislature. His message presents nothing
new but the same old deceptive song that J.A.I.L., “would allow citizens
to sue judges for decisions they did not like.” (a precise quote.)

It seems that not a one of these Chief Judges want to
talk about what the J.A.I.L. Initiative really provides for, to wit; ¶2
“Immunity. No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any
deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due
process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without
jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate
violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States,
notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute.”

I once stated to an attorney who pronounced himself as
spokesperson for the judges of the California Court of Appeals when he accused
this author of going after judges because these judges made simple mistakes, I
asked him, “Where in this list do you derive that J.A.I.L. is about going
after judges for making simple mistakes?” Just so, I now ask Chief
Justice Moon, “Where in the J.A.I.L. provisions do you find that J.A.I.L.
“would allow citizens to sue judges for decisions they did not
like.”

One could wonder if all these Chief Justices around the
country want judges to “deliberately violate the law, commit fraud,
intentionally violate due process of law, commit acts in violation of their
jurisdiction, and deliberately violate both the state and federal Constitutions
they have sworn to uphold and defend with impunity. In short, want to impugn
the integrity of the entire judiciary before the eyes of all Americans. How to
you respond, Mr. Moon? Are we here about to witness the dark side of Chief
Justice Moon?

Just the very thought of J.A.I.L. causes these Chief
Justices around the country to quiver, lest we bring justice to bear.

Below are excerpts of Chief Justice Ronald Moon’s
State of the Judiciary Address. (The full text may be read by clicking
the URL).

… President Hanabusa, Speaker Say, Governor Lingle, Lieutenant Governor
and Mrs. Aiona, distinguished members of the 24th Legislature, fellow judges,
Judiciary and other state employees, judges of the federal bench, members of
local and federal law enforcement, former Washington State Chief Justice
Richard Guy, my fellow members of the Royal Order of King Kamehameha the First,
members of the Hawaiian Royal Societies, other special guests, family, friends,
and fellow citizens:

I am privileged and honored to have this
opportunity to address this joint session of the Hawaii State Legislature and
extend my sincere appreciation for your kind invitation to speak about the
state of the Judiciary. ….

… I continue to be concerned about
the perception of many that our justice system is not functioning as it should
and that some of our citizens, therefore, feel they need to take matters into
their own hands to fix it.

I am, of course, not opposed to our
citizens taking a greater interest in public affairs. In fact, I firmly believe
that we need to find ways to better motivate our citizens to more actively
participate in government and in such civic matters as voting and jury service.
However, I am concerned about some of the initiatives that appeared on other
state ballots in the most recent elections — some of which were proposed
and promoted as a way to fix our justice system.

For example: The citizens of South Dakota
voted on a radical constitutional amendment, entitled Judicial Accountability
Initiative Law — commonly referred to as "JAIL for Judges"
— that proposed, among other things, the creation of a new grand jury
that would allow citizens to sue judges for decisions they did not like.
Although the amendment did not pass, the fact that it was even proposed
underscores fundamental misunderstandings of the duties of legislators and
judges and how judges are held accountable. ….

Nevertheless, as evinced by initiatives
like South Dakota 's
JAIL for Judges, an alarming number of our citizens continue to believe that
the role of the courts is to bend to the whims of the press or, at least, those
who have the money to mount advertising campaigns and get press attention.
Thus, when some of our citizens disagree with a judge's decision because it is
not in conformity with what they perceive as the "popular will," they
often cry out for reforms, like the election of judges.

Indeed, rumor has it that this legislature
may be asked to consider proposals calling for the election of judges. And,
although such a proposal is not "new," it seems rather ironic since
many other jurisdictions are attempting to repeal the election process in their
respective states because of the effect judicial elections have on preserving a
fair and impartial justice system.

Under an elective system for judges, there
is the constant threat that an unpopular decision could result in the loss of
popular votes — a consideration that has no place in a judge's
decision-making process. And, sadly, judges in elective jurisdictions who have
adhered to the high standards of fair and impartial judicial decision-making
have paid the ultimate price at the polls — that is, they have lost their
jobs. But, a decision that is made fairly, impartially, and in accordance with
the constitution and the law — even though unpopular — is, in the
words of the late United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist,
one of the crown jewels of our democracy. Those who favor electing judges often
do because they believe judges are not held accountable for their actions or
decisions. They are wrong.

Hawaii’s judges are held accountable in
more ways than any other public officer. First, each judge's legal decision is
subject to review and reversal by Hawaii 's
appellate courts and, depending on the issues, by the United States Supreme
Court. Each judge's performance, demeanor, and competence are subject to review
and sanction by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which may recommend a
judge's removal from office. A judge seeking retention is also subject to
review and sanction by the Judicial Selection Commission, which may — and
does -- refuse to retain judges. In addition, the supreme court's Rule 19
committee administers the Judicial Performance Evaluation program under which
each judge's performance is evaluated one or more times during the judge's term
of office.

A Judicial Performance Review Panel
— composed of a retired judge, a retired attorney, and a member of our
lay community — discusses the evaluation results with the judge so that
the judge may improve his or her performance for the benefit of the public. In
addition, the Hawaii ’s
State Bar Association conducts its own judicial evaluation program and provides
the results of its surveys to our judges.

Judges are, to the best of my knowledge,
the only public officers in Hawaii’s whose decisions, performance,
competence, and demeanor are subject to probing, professional, and systematic
scrutiny. In short, judges are held accountable by mechanisms that assure
accountability, without undermining the impartiality of our courts. Fair and
impartial courts provide the balance that is essential to the workings of our
government and not only makes our democracy the envy of many of our foreign
neighbors, but ensures equal access to justice for all. Undermining the
impartiality of the courts jeopardizes the very access our citizens expect.
Indeed, without access to the courts, there can be no justice for our
citizenry. ….

He has combined with others to subject us
to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws;
giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. -
Declaration of Independence
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel
Adams

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the
root."-- Henry David Thoreau